pptx_log_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description reveals it appends to notes (a write operation) and that output_path defaults to overwriting input, which is important behavioral info. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then provides structured argument list. While slightly verbose with the Args section, it is clear and efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All necessary information is present: purpose, parameters with descriptions, default behavior for output_path, and what is returned. No output schema needed; return value is described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description repeats parameter descriptions but adds clarifying context for the 'changes' object structure, providing marginal additional value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb 'append', resource 'first slide's notes', and purpose 'audit trail since PowerPoint doesn't have track changes'. Distinguishes from all sibling tools, as no other tool logs changes to notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for audit trail since PowerPoint doesn't have track changes', providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like pptx_set_notes, but the use case is well defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.